Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 67026	2006-03-14 17:08:00	phone text bullying......	drcspy (146)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
438127	2006-03-16 23:07:00	Good question and it ain't easy. However with a 3 year old I'd describe the behaviour which was unsatisfactory and give them 10 - 15 minutes time out. Or withdraw their favourite TV program provided it was going to be on soon. Significantly, the child would not be described as bad. Instead the behaviour would be described. The distinction is important - at all ages. That's how we did it, time outs, withdrawing favourite TV or other treats, & distinguish bad behaviour from bad child. We had video tapes with multiple episodes of Playschool (all for the same day so that they always saw the programming for the correct day) or Sesame Street so they rarely needed to watch live TV. It made withdrawing the privilege easy as we could set the time it would be watched. To this day TV comes after homework, and not during the week for the one still at College, but programs are recorded so that they don't have to be missed. They watched bugger-all TV anyway, they were too busy being kids. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
438128	2006-03-16 23:50:00	The trouble is that some parents have no concept of when to stop. And those parents are unlikely to take any notice of the law. Years ago I took a video of a kids birthday party. He had a tantrum and when the video was played back and he saw himself and the reaction of the others he was shocked enough to change his ways.	mikebartnz (21)
438129	2006-03-17 00:19:00	And those parents are unlikely to take any notice of the law. Years ago I took a video of a kids birthday party. He had a tantrum and when the video was played back and he saw himself and the reaction of the others he was shocked enough to change his ways. Video eh! Interesting concept particularly as it worked. The argument that some people ignore the law doesn't invalidate the law. The anti-smacking supporters are simply saying that the section in the Crimes Act which allows parents to assault their child should be removed. I agree. The histrionics of those who say mum and dad will be in Court for a simple smack is nonsense. The Police have far better things to do and so do Judges. The point is that if this exception in the law is removed, society receives a message that assaulting children is no different to assaulting anyone else. It will take at least one or two generations for change but the message will get through. At the moment kids get beaten at home and think it is normal. So they grow up doing the same thing. They need to learn it is wrong so they can make the change. Not easy or completely successful but better than the way things are.	Winston001 (3612)
438130	2006-03-17 03:23:00	Sorry, havent read entire post, however when watching the news re: the text bullying, I was amazed that no one thought to have the culprit phone number disabled, could be for like 1 day, 1 week, for ever. With Telecom, the the phone is only good for the 1 number unless Telecom transfer numbers therefore the bully would get pissed with having a phone that was diabled. If Telecom can stop a number at anytime, why didnt they suggest this course of action?	SolMiester (139)
438131	2006-03-17 03:30:00	Sorry, havent read entire post, however when watching the news re: the text bullying, I was amazed that no one thought to have the culprit phone number disabled, could be for like 1 day, 1 week, for ever. With Telecom, the the phone is only good for the 1 number unless Telecom transfer numbers therefore the bully would get pissed with having a phone that was diabled. If Telecom can stop a number at anytime, why didnt they suggest this course of action? Well if they're anything like my attempts to get Vodafone to do something about the obscene SMS she suddenly started to get from a couple of Vodafone prepays (she's in her 40s) I don't give much for your chances. I accessed Vodafone's web site and input all the info , contact details and the offending numbers, Clicked on send and was asked if I wanted to create a Vodafone profile which I declined. Never heard anything back . The messages eventally stopped after a couple of months..	paulw (1826)
438132	2006-03-17 08:01:00	Not nescessarily. Texting represents a leap in communication technology. Previously a threat or nasty comment could be said but now it is written. The written word has more power than speech because it is in a much more permanent form. It can be copied to others who join in. The bullying often takes the form of malicious gossip which is sent from person to person and can be reviewed and repeated at will. Say something enough times and people believe it. Kids can be very nasty. Girls are especially good with words. So I think this is a serious issue without any easy solution. The current acknowedgement of bullying behaviour is at least a step towards controlling it. pressf1.pcworld.co.nz Why in your opinion does the written word have more power here? Does that fact that it is written make it true? I have seen newspaper reports that totally distort the truth. I know as I was there at several events when items were published after the events.	Sweep (90)
438133	2006-03-17 08:31:00	Good question and it ain't easy. However with a 3 year old I'd describe the behaviour which was unsatisfactory and give them 10 - 15 minutes time out. Or withdraw their favourite TV program provided it was going to be on soon. Significantly, the child would not be described as bad. Instead the behaviour would be described. The distinction is important - at all ages. I've only learned this by going to parenting courses and reading various books on child rearing. My initial instinct was to shout and smack. But the new psychological stuff does work. There is a time for a smack - it is an instant sharp lesson not to do something such as rush out into the street or bite dad. Purists would say no smacking even then but IMHO a rarely given smack isn't harmful and is still effective. The trouble is that some parents have no concept of when to stop. Could you please explain how a three year old child understands a distinction in terms. At that age the child will still have problems communicating as will you. As to the child rearing a person did this before on the psychological stuff as you put it. The new version may be better and I actually have no idea if it is or not. I refer you to a book written about 1946 - 1948 by Doctor Benjamin Spock. Has your psychologist got it right? He not of StarTrek fame. www.drspock.com This person actually recanted his earlier statements about how to raise children as mentioned in his book. The book he wrote was second only to the Bible in sales. This worries me as we have had a few generations brought up this way. Be careful about what you read is my point.	Sweep (90)
438134	2006-03-17 09:01:00	Could you please explain how a three year old child understands a distinction in terms. At that age the child will still have problems communicating as will you. Are you a parent Sweep? You don't need words or comprehension to teach a baby to sleep at night, they respond to sensation and parenting actions, so shaping the behaviour of a two or three year-old is no problem at all. It just take persistence, consistency and limits. Screaming kids in supermarkets are a classic illustration of children who have never known consistency or limits. If there are two things a toddler can understand it is the meaning of No, and time-outs. They may not be able to rationalise or vocalise it, but they recognise parental authority when it is properly exercised. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
438135	2006-03-17 09:09:00	Yes I know who Dr Spock is but no-one talks about his theories today. Spock posited free form unstructured childrearing with the idea that children should be allowed to be themselves. No boundaries. We got a whole generation of brats as a result. Now those brats are having children themselves which has come as a bit of a shock. However they are imposing boundaries, discipline and limits on child behaviour. The difference is parents today try not to criticise the child but rather the behaviour. And they try (hopefully) not to hit their children. There are no perfect answers. All I can say is that I try using these ideas and they seem to work. Billy's post sets it out very well. Ultimately it seems to me that if you love your children then hitting them is a poor way of showing it. To be fair, generations of humans have survived and thrived despite cruel parenting. Not everyone is scarred for life. It is the shy scared vulnerable kids we need to really look out for.	Winston001 (3612)
438136	2006-03-17 09:36:00	Are you a parent Sweep? You don't need words or comprehension to teach a baby to sleep at night, they respond to sensation and parenting actions, so shaping the behaviour of a two or three year-old is no problem at all. It just take persistence, consistency and limits. Screaming kids in supermarkets are a classic illustration of children who have never known consistency or limits. If there are two things a toddler can understand it is the meaning of No, and time-outs. They may not be able to rationalise or vocalise it, but they recognise parental authority when it is properly exercised. Cheers Billy 8-{) Yes I am a parent. My daughter is now 39 and married. We need I think to draw a line in the sand. Some parents need education as well. At this time a 12 year old child can get away with anything apart from Murder, Manslaughter and Rape. I never had to teach sleeping at night. Your milage may vary of course.	Sweep (90)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7